|Topic Review (Newest First)|
|05-10-2019 07:30 PM|
The sort of “downshift” effect that the CVT kicks in (or the old 4EAT from my 2001) when the throttle is opened up may do as you say, but that’s not really the problem per se. The problem is that by adding the shift points, the engine drops out of the peak torque band during harder acceleration. Why? Who the eff knows beyond the “people didn’t like it” reason mentioned by the sales folks, but the 2013 CVT was tuned so that it was possible to hold the engine near 4100RPM while accelerating with the 2.5 FB engine. It didn’t suddenly “upshift” without throttle input changes like the Gen 5s do.
That said, the improvements on rubber banding since 2013 let me suffer heavy traffic better, and it’s at least a fair trade in my case.
|05-10-2019 06:17 PM|
You are mixing up the elements of my posts with those of other folks. It’s OK though, I’m not offended, as this is just chat for me. No hard feelings either way. I’m certain we are posting here because we enjoy our vehicles or at least posting about them.
I happen to appreciate the simulated shift points, but seldom feel them in the 3.6. I didn’t have them on my 2014 Forester 2.5i (it didn’t even have paddles) and the 2015 FXTT didn’t have simulated shift points either, except in S# mode, which was different anyway.
I don’t have technical knowledge about the mechanics of the various CVTs I have owned in my vehicles or otherwise driven, just whether the drivetrain was responsive and felt good to drive. Most have not for reasons already mentioned. I personally don’t give a hoot whether some Subaru owners are happy with a drivetrain I loathe, I just want one I like.
Truthfully, other than the folks that tend to post on these forums, the average Subaru driver I meet while waiting at the dealer showroom during service visits doesn’t have a clue about any of the stuff we are arguing about. They don’t know what a “flat six” or “flat four” is or what a CVT might be. Not a vague clue. They just want a pleasant, safe, and long lasting driving experience. I know because I have made casual conversation numerous times about their vehicles mechanical qualities and gotten blank looks almost every time. They hardly could find the oil dip stick or check the air in their tires unless they consulted the owners manual. And, that’s pretty normal, I would imagine. It’s us who post here that are somewhat abnormal.
And, high horsepower isn’t the answer to everything. The finest and most fun vehicle I have ever owned was a modestly powered 2013 Mazda Miata GT with a retractable hard top and a wonderfully slick manual.
|05-10-2019 05:22 PM|
Originally Posted by ammcinnis View Post
None of what I said is changed by your post. Whether or not the shift points are there for feel or performance doesn't matter if the proper amount of torque is enough for the car to accelerate at rate that doesn't activate the shift point. And the infinite combinations of torque...power,, and programing do have one big limitation, torque. I can assure you that there is no amount of programming, with or without shift points, that will get the Forester off the line to 60 mph faster than a 2019 Corvette. The Corvette has more power and torque.
And, I am quite confident that my 3.6 will not accelerate from 50 mph to 70 mph at 2000 cruise RPMS at the same rate of 3500 RPMs because I know the torque is different. The CVT is programmed to shift so I can get to that best torque RPM quicker. Why do you think the turbo 4 cylinder Forester shifts so much? I'm pretty sure it's not for that seat of the pants feel. Otherwise they would have put that same seat of the pants feel program in my 3.6.
|05-10-2019 04:14 PM|
Any given horsepower demand (within the capabilities of a particular engine) can be satisfied by an infiinite combination of torque and rpm ... power ~ torque x rpm ... but only a narrow range of those combinations will yield the highest efficiency and fuel economy at any given moment. The virtually infinite range of ratios provided by a CVT allows the onboard computers to command the optimum engine rpm for any given power demand. "Simulated shifts" actually compromise this capability.
|05-10-2019 03:47 PM|
Sure, a decent GM 505 hp LS7 engine would be a great fit. AND FUN.
The fuel efficient Subaru engine is the reason for programmed shift points. For a CVT to satisfy you, the engine needs more power. If Subarus had that kind of power, CVTs wouldn't even need programmed shift points because the engine would have the torque to accelerate quickly to whatever the driver demands. But because Subaru wants to market a fuel efficient car, they have to build the CVT with shift points for those of us who want to get up and go faster. Subaru is giving us the best of both worlds, economy and power. It's just comes at the cost of those annoying shift points. Those same shift points that other car manufacturers provide with automatic transmissions.
I do agree with you though, the problem isn't the engine, its your heavy foot. Ease back a bit and you won't feel those annoying shift points. Rubberbanding maybe, but not the shift points.
|05-10-2019 03:15 PM|
You don’t read your own posts. You said the problem was the engines and mentioned the 2.0 DIT, the 2,5 and even the 3.6. not a poorly matched CVT or lousy engine programming.
Decent engine plus decent tranny plus decent tuning equals good results in my book.
|05-10-2019 03:09 PM|
Unsuitable for what?
Most Subaru owners are quite satisfied with CVT even with shift points and rubberbanding.
|05-10-2019 03:07 PM|
|05-10-2019 02:58 PM|
|05-10-2019 02:16 PM|
Huh. Based on that logic, hardly any Subaru vehicles should have a CVT because they are either wimpy fours, small turbos, or the 3,6 six, which is being replaced.
All of them are unsuitable, it seems. Is there an eight cylinder vehicle with a CVT ? Anywhere?
|This thread has more than 10 replies. Click here to review the whole thread.|